In its Order, Judge Roy Payne found that Flywheel had “not sufficiently shown that a stay would simplify the issues within the case,” and “that a stay would result in significant prejudice for Peloton.” Order at 1. The Court agreed with Peloton that a stay would be particularly inappropriate here given that Flywheel’s At Home Bike, which allegedly incorporates the infringing technology, is a “direct competitor” to Peloton.
Importantly, the Court also rejected Flywheel’s argument that a stay would help simplify the issues, agreeing with Peloton that given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) – which precluded the PTAB from instituting IPRs for only a portion of the patent claims – “any institution decision occurring after SAS provides a weaker inference that the PTAB will determine that all challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, institution decisions for the ’085, ’276, and ’855 [Peloton] Patents are less helpful in indicating that IPRs will result in a simplification of issues than they would have been before SAS.” The Court’s agreement with Peloton’s argument here is significant and highly relevant to not just the instant litigation, but other patent litigations pending throughout the U.S.
Steven N. Feldman of Hueston Hennigan LLP, counsel for Peloton, said, “We are pleased that the Court rejected Flywheel’s attempt to stay this important litigation, and look forward to proceeding expeditiously to trial.”
Jury selection is set to begin on June 15, 2020.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 9,174,085, 9,233,276, 9,861,855 and 10,322,315.
The case is Peloton Interactive Inc. v. Flywheel Sports Inc., case number 2:18-cv-00390, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.
Peloton is represented by Steven N. Feldman, Douglas J. Dixon, Christina Rayburn, Karen Younkins and Neil Anderson of Hueston Hennigan LLP.